周二投票结束前数小时，在共和党遭遇历史性惨败之前，总统唐纳德·特朗普对即将到来的溃败不以为意，声称自己拥有如此大的权力，以至于哪个党派控制国会都无关紧要。特朗普直言不讳地指出了他巨大权力的来源：最高法院。
Hours before polls closed on Tuesday ahead of Republicans’ historic defeat, President Donald Trump shrugged off the impending wipeout by stating that he has so much power, it doesn’t matter what party controls Congress. Trump bluntly named the source of his awesome authority: the Supreme Court.
“我们赢了那场官司，那场官司赋予了总统前所未有的巨大权力，”特朗普对哥伦比亚广播公司新闻表示，他指的是最高法院6比3的共和党任命多数派在6月作出的裁决，该裁决允许他控制独立机构。他没有说错。在那起案件和其他案件中，最高法院改变了政府各部门之间的权力平衡，削弱了国会，同时赋予总统国王般的权力。
“We won the case and the case gives the president tremendous powers that it never had before,” Trump told CBS News, referring to the June decision by the court’s 6-3 Republican-appointed majority allowing him to control independent agencies. He’s not wrong. In that case and others, the Supreme Court has shifted the balance between the branches of government, disempowering Congress while handing the president king-like powers.
但昨天的选举不仅是对特朗普的斥责，也是对最高法院所创造的政治体制的斥责。选民对腐败的愤怒不仅针对特朗普不断膨胀的银行账户，也针对扭曲我们政治的巨额资金——比如埃隆·马斯克今年为支持共和党人而花费的五亿美元。最高法院创造这一现实，不仅是通过那起案件及后续案件让亿万富翁和行业在我们的选举中无限制地花钱，还通过一系列不太引人注目的案件使腐败官员几乎无法被起诉。
But yesterday’s elections were not just a rebuke of Trump; they were a rebuke of the system of politics that the Supreme Court has created. Voters’ anger over corruption not just about Trump’s ballooning bank accounts, but also at the vast sums of money warping our politics—like the half-billion Elon Musk spent to prop up Republicans this year. The Supreme Court created this reality not only through and subsequent cases letting billionaires and industry spend unlimited sums in our elections, but through a lower-profile line of cases in which they made it almost impossible to prosecute corrupt officials.
黑人选民踊跃投票，斥责阿拉巴马州共和党人试图通过不公正划分选区来剥夺他们的权力，这一事实是对最高法院破坏1965年《投票权法》及其认可冷酷——且带有种族主义色彩的——不公正划分选区的拒绝。许多民主党人明确以反对最高法院创造的不公平政治竞争环境为竞选纲领。“致那些试图击败我们的超级政治行动委员会和特殊利益集团，”民主党当选参议员阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德周二晚在密歇根州的胜选演讲中说，“我们要来对付你们的政治体制了。”那个最高法院造就的体制。
The fact that Black voters surged to rebuke Alabama Republicans’ attempt to gerrymander away their power was a rejection of this Supreme Court’s destruction of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its endorsement of ruthless—and racist—gerrymandering. Many Democrats ran explicitly against the rigged political playing field this court created. “To the super PACs and special interests who tried to beat us,” Democratic Senator-Elect Abdul El-Sayed said in his victory speech in Michigan Tuesday night, “we are coming for your system of politics.”The system the Supreme Court made.
随着民主党即将以舒适的优势控制国会两院，民众很快将清晰地看到最高法院所确立的“帝制总统制”及其造成的腐败。在特朗普第二任期的前两年里，总统自行主张了属于国会的权力，包括花钱和拨款的权力、征收关税的权力以及宣战的权力。由于国会由忠于特朗普的共和党人控制，几乎没有遇到任何抵制。
With Democrats set to take control of both chambers of Congress by comfortable margins, the people will soon see the Supreme Court’s imperial presidency and the corruption it has wreaked in stark relief. For the first two years of Trump’s second term, the president claimed for himself powers reserved to Congress, including the power to spend money and appropriate funds, the power to levy tariffs, and the power to declare wars. Because Congress was controlled by Republicans loyal to Trump, there was virtually no pushback.
但从1月3日起，总统将试图无视民主党控制的国会的意愿来运作政府，依据的是最高法院赋予他的权力，并依靠同一批大法官为他提供协助。他对行政特权的主张将与反对党议员调查其政府的企图发生冲突；他对行政机构及其预算执行的掌控可能会与国会的监督职责发生冲突。在法院系统中，法官乃至最高法院大法官很可能将不得不处理国会多数派能够对行政部门提起的诉讼。
But come January 3, the president will attempt to run the government in defiance of the will of a Democratic Congress, based on the powers the Supreme Court has given him, and relying on the same justices to assist him. His claims to executive privilege will run up against opposition lawmakers’ attempts to investigate his administration; his grasp on the agencies and how they administer their budgets may run up against Congress’ oversight responsibilities. In the courts, judges, and possibly the Supreme Court justices, will likely grapple with lawsuits a majority of Congress will be able to file against the executive.
这种局面将引发一场关乎我国政府体制未来的核心较量：是由一个无视法律的总统统治，还是由人民选出的代表统治？两年后，选民将选择他们倾向的政府形式。
The situation will bring on a central battle over the future of our system of government: will we have rule by a lawless president, or rule by the people’s elected representatives? In two more years, the voters will choose which form of government they prefer.
特朗普说得没错，最高法院扩大了他的权力，尤其是在过去两年里。在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写的意见书中，法院允许总统无因由解除独立机构负责人的职务，从而将这些机构的控制权交到了总统手中。除了美联储之外，特朗普现在可以控制联邦贸易委员会等强力机构，也可以控制鲜为人知的功绩制系统保护委员会等机构，后者是在水门事件后设立的，旨在保护文官体系免受政治报复。
Trump is right that the Supreme Court has grown his powers, particularly in the last two years. In the opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court handed the president control of independent agencies by allowing him to remove their leaders without cause. With the exception of the Federal Reserve, Trump can now control powerful agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and little known ones like the Merit Systems Protection Board, which was created after Watergate to insulate the civil service from political reprisal.
事实上，这一裁决可能为总统解雇任何文职人员并用不合格的忠诚者取而代之打开大门，将政府从一个专家组成的机构变成一个政治阴谋家和“裙带关系”受益者的温床。
Indeed, the decision could open the door for presidents to fire any civil servant and replace them with unqualified loyalists, transforming the government from a body of experts into a nest of political schemers and nepo babies.
这一裁决是罗伯茨多份意见书的集大成之作，他在其中为一个强大且无需问责的总统搭建了脚手�，其依据既非宪法也非建国初期的历史，而是关于国家早期历史和建国者意图的站不住脚的说法。波士顿大学法学教授杰德·舒格曼在裁决公布后发帖指出，该意见书“薄弱得令人尴尬，充满历史错误和精心挑选的史料”，是“从单一行政权理论反向推导出来的”。
The decision was the culmination of multiple Roberts opinions in which he has created the scaffolding for a powerful, unaccountable president, based not on the Constitution or the founding era but rather on disproven stories about the country’s early history and the intention of the founders. is “embarrassingly thin, full of historical errors and cherry-picked sources,” Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman posted after the decision was handed down, “reverse engineered from unitary ideology.”
他指的是单一行政权理论，即一个全能的总统控制行政部门的每一个行动。这一理论由共和党律师在20世纪80年代炮制，他们以为本党能控制白宫，却无法掌控国会。罗伯茨在里根政府时期崭露头角，当时这一理论正在形成，身为首席大法官后，他将其确立为国家法律。但这是一个建立在历史不实和对宪法误读基础上的薄弱理论。
He was referring to the idea of a unitary executive, an all-powerful president who controls every action of the executive branch. It was cooked up by Republican lawyers in the 1980s who thought their party could control the White House but wouldn’t be able to secure Congress. Roberts came up in the Reagan administration, where this theory was being developed, and as chief justice, he has turned it into the law of the land. But it’s a weak theory based on historical inaccuracies and a misreading of the Constitution.
此外，其后果是灾难性的。特朗普热切地践行这一单一行政权理论，清楚地表明，法院创造了一个不受法律约束的总统职位。
Moreover, its results are disastrous. As Trump has eagerly embodied this unitary executive, it’s clear that what the court has created is a presidency unbound by the laws.
这在罗伯茨那项臭名昭著的判决中体现得最为字面、最为彻底，该判决赋予总统免受刑事起诉的豁免权。在大法官们为其提供的、使其免于为犯罪行为负责的保护伞下，特朗普以前所未有的规模违法乱纪，从谋取私利、收受贿赂，到下令在海上杀害平民。他正考虑大规模赦免以保护行政部门，这不仅会让总统，还会让他的亲信免于遵守法律的必要性。
This is most literally true in , Roberts’ infamous decision giving presidents immunity from criminal prosecution. Shielded by the justices from accountability for criminal acts, Trump has broken laws on an unprecedented scale, from self-enrichment and taking bribes to ordering the murder of civilians at sea. He’s contemplating mass pardons to insulate the executive branch, which would seal off not just the president but his cronies from the imperative to follow the law.
罗伯茨的意见还赋予了特朗普对调查和起诉的专属权力——甚至包括旨在进行政治迫害的虚假调查和起诉。特朗普已拥抱这一权力，通过制造刑事起诉，将司法部变成了打击他不喜欢之人的武器。
Roberts’ opinion also gave Trump exclusive authority over investigations and prosecutions—even sham ones aimed at political persecution. Trump has embraced this power by turning the Justice Department into a weapon against people he doesn’t like by manufacturing criminal indictments.
最后，法院欢迎特朗普政府的紧急上诉，并将针对行政部门的不利裁决视为对总统的严重损害，允许其许多非法政策得以推进，即使下级法院已认定这些行动极可能违法。
Finally, the court has welcomed the Trump administration’s emergency appeals and treated adverse ruling against the executive branch as a serious harm to the president, allowing many of his illegal policies to go forward even after lower courts found the actions likely unlawful.
“总统职位，我们的总统职位，被认为是一个强有力的总统职位，”特朗普周二对哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS News）新闻说。“你可以做很多事。”但正如罗伯茨法院给予特朗普的那样多——并且很可能还会继续让他逃脱责任——特朗普在夺取某些权力方面也遭遇了挫折。法院斥责了他随意征收关税的能力，并驳回了他向蓝州城市部署国民警卫队的企图。
“The presidency, our presidency, is considered a strong presidency,” Trump told CBS News on Tuesday. “You can do a lot.”But as much as the Roberts Court has given Trump—and may well yet let him get away with—Trump has also fallen short in seizing certain powers. The court rebuked his ability to indiscriminately levy tariffs, and shot down his effort to deploy the National Guard to blue cities.
尽管如此，特朗普正确地认识到，最高法院为其腐败的威权主义抛出了一根救命稻草。正如特朗普在2025年国情咨文中对罗伯茨所说，拍着他的背，“再次感谢，再次感谢。不会忘记的。”在未来两年里，美国人民将看到他们结盟的后果。特朗普越多谈论法院赋予他的权力，人们可能就越不仅会拒绝这位总统，还会拒绝造就他的体制。
Still, Trump is right to recognize that the Supreme Court has thrown him a lifeline for his corrupt authoritarianism. As Trump told Roberts at his 2025 State of the Union address, patting him on the back, “Thank you again, thank you again. Won’t forget it.”Over the next two years, the American people will see the consequences of their alliance at work. The more Trump talks about the powers the court gave him, the more people might reject not just this president, but the system that created him.